10
CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
2.1 Conversation Analysis
Conversation Analysis CA known as ethnomethodology which has been developed by sociologist has offered an approach to discourse. It tries to
discover the methods by which member of a society produce a sense of its own sense of structure. Ciccorel 1972 as quoted by Schiffrin says that conversation
is a source of much of our sense of social order as it produces many of the typifications underlying our notions of social role. CA is therefore specially
applied to conversation. CA seems to be related to interactional sociolinguistics in its concern
with the problem of social order, and how language both creates and is created by social context and it is believed that no detail of conversation can be neglected a
priori as unimportant. Whereas the language itself is no less situated product of rules and systems than other typifications: categories that are continuously
adjusted according to whether the anticipation of an actor is confirmed by another actor.
CA as Schiffrin 1994: 235 says focuses upon details of actual events: analysts record conversations that occur without researcher prompting but the
researcher produces transcription events that attempt to reproduce what is said in ways that avoids presupposition about what might be important for either
participant or analysts themselves.
11
Talking about the specific method and findings of CA, We can refer to what Heitage 1984a: 241 has listed. Those are three assumptions of CA : 1
interaction is structurally organized; b contributions to interaction are contextual oriented; c these two properties inhere in the details of interaction so that no
order of detail can be dismissed, a priori, as orderly, accidental, or irrelevant. This means that it is participants’ conduct itself that must provide
evidence for the presence of units, existence of pattern, and formulation of rules and CA searches for recurrent pattern, distributions, and forms of organization in
talk
2.2 The Spoken Language: key descriptive area
Nowadays there are many kinds of descriptive literature that are available on spoken discourse. Sociolinguists, discourse analysts and conversation
analysts come at spoken language from different perspectives. They offer the interested language teachers something to get excited about and also present
findings that seem to be relevant to second and foreign language teaching. The studies are many and varied in their general characteristics. They range from
major attempt to model the spoken language in term of structure done by Sinclair and Coulthard 1975, perspective of socio-cultural norms to which conversational
participants orient themselves, such as turn-taking conducted by Sack et al 1974, and descriptions of complex surface manifestations such as discourse- marking
observed by Schiffrin 1987
12
Structural Feature.
McCarthy. 1998: 50 proposes that there are three structural units fundamental to all spoken interaction. They emerge from a wide range of studies
in discourse and conversational analysis: the transaction, the exchange and the adjacency pair.
1. Transaction
Term transaction Sinclair and Coulthard 1975 use is to label stretches of talk identified by certain type of activity at their boundaries because like the
paragraph in written language, the transaction has no pre-defined length and is only recognizable by its boundaries. It is difficult, of course, to imagine that talk
runs effectively with no participants signaling in some way or other and recognizing such boundaries. So as a structure, transaction can be put into a
discourse universal. As unit of discourse, the transaction is further said that it possibly
presents us with a problem on two distinction levels. On the first level, there may be a problem of awareness among both teacher and learner if we talk about
classroom talk that transaction signaling is an important part of behaving linguistically in the target language. On the second one, the problem is principally
a lexical one. It talks about how the target language realize the marking and whether the second language literal lexical equivalents for items like ‘Good’ and
‘Now then’ as well as those used for marking purpose .
13
2. The Exchange
As the minimum structural unit of interaction, it contains an initiation and a response. But then in casual conversation, it may include the follow-up, the
third function. With those three functions; the first function the initiation, the second
function the response and the third function the follow-up, the exchange is in fact often realized in quite complex configuration
3. The Adjacency pair
The adjacency pair is usually conducted from an ethnomethodological stand point Mc Carthy,1998: 54. It is concerned with how participants behave in
interaction in terms of alignment how they position themselves socially in relation to their interlocutors, achieving goals, negotiating outcomes etc.
Sometimes speakers or participants may take a definite stand in what they say. They take a position or assert a proposition and are prepared to defend it in
argument David Butt et al 1995: 78-9. Seen from the metalanguage portion when speakers are definite about
their propositions, the finite always encodes the time of the action in relation to the speakers and it is very important if we are to argue about a clause. It is the
Subject-Finite relationship which allow discussion of the proposition contained in a clause.
2.3 Definition of the Exchange
Sinclair et al 1972 as quoted by Marcolm and Brazil. D 1992: 64 defined the exchange as the basic unit of interaction. This definition is in line
14
with what Mc.Carthy. M 1998: 52 say that the exchange is the minimal structural unit of interaction consisting of initiation and a response, for example: a
question and its answer or a greeting and a return greeting. It is said to be the basic unit because it consists minimally of
contribution by two participants and it combines to form the largest unit of interaction, the transaction. Further more Sinclair et al suggested that there were
three major classes of exchange: eliciting, directing, and informing. These shows the initial moves function respectively to request a verbal response, to require a
non-verbal response and to provide new information as the most general sense of information
2.4 Concept of
Kategori